Former Questions Please share with us why?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PJM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I did not feel Christ in the CC. I do not agree with some of the things they teach like Mary being ever virgin. That Jesus had no brothers and sisters. That Mary was born without sin. That the Pope is infallible when it comes to spiritual matters. That they are to Church founded by Jesus. That they are the true church. That Christ is present in the Eucharist when a priest says a certain prayer. That I need to confess my sins to a priest and he can say they are forgiven. I also find the services to be ritualistic. That there is only one point of view and that is their view and anything different is heresy and false teachings. That they are the only ones who can interperate Scripture correctly. There’s more but I guess you get my point. Now I have nothing against Catholics I just don’t see things the way they want you to see them
 
I’ve been rather quiet concerning this topic as I know that charity is not always a focus (and especially in this kind of a topic)…

I left the Catholic Church for dogmatic issues.
It was not because of the teachings on sexuality, nor because of a lack to deal with sin (and going to confession), nor because of any other “typical” reason to leave (even though this is usually suspected of the ones that leave the Church by those who remain). I am of the opinion that the majority of those who defect don’t fit the stereotype. Most who leave do not do so because of a divorce, an abortion, practising birth control, fornication, homosexuality, laziness etc.

My personal reasons were doubts and denial in these areas:
  • the IC,
  • the perpetual virginity of Mary and her assumption,
  • the structure, origin, sending and authority of the (modern) Catholic Church,
  • the power of priests all the way up to the pope,
  • the veneration of saints, their relics and images of saints,
  • the existence of purgatory,
  • the necessity of the sacraments, especially baptism
  • the eucharist,
  • indulgences,
  • Mary being without sin,
    etc.
As this thread is not about Catholics trying to win back lapsed Catholics I won’t go into deep discussions of my motives.
I know that you will disagree with me and I respect that.
In case you might ask, no I do not hate Mary, and no I am still a Christian, though I am not a Catholic Christian any more.
I live my life for Jesus Christ who is my Lord, my Saviour and my Master and there is none other for me.
If you think that my rejection of the Catholic Church and my proclaimed love for the Lord are contradictory I respect that opinion too. You are entitled to that opinion.
I am not trying to convince anybody to follow me on my path. I am just trying to answer the question I quoted above.
If my post sounded as if I was trying to convince you or anybody else to leave the Catholic Church I ask you to please forgive me as this was not my intention. I have no intention to break the rules for this part of the forum.

As for me, yes I do not submit myself to the authority to the Catholic Church any more nor do I necessarily accept all of her teachings, even though I did for about 20 years. My formal defection did not take place until January of this year, though I had quit to consider myself Catholic before that…
I do not believe myself lost. As a matter of fact I do believe myself to be saved and forgiven by my Lord.
Thank you for sharing your decision on this thread Janet. How does one accomplish a “formal defection”?
 
In a recent post i did state i did have some concerns on the RCC, but i would not raise them until a thread led that way, well i feel this thread has led me to ask;

I dont Understand why the Pope allows many to bow down before him and kiss his hand, to me this is a sign of worship. Paul was horror struck when it happened to him, even to point where he ripped his clothes.
It only seems like worship to you because you are from a different culture. Bowing is the most common form of greeting in the East. Some even prostrate themselves, as we can see in the OT. It is reverential, but not the same as worship, which is reserved only for God. The same is done to the Dali Lama, but they are not worshipping him, either.

The kissing of a ring is also an ancient custom that expresses respect for the office of the one wearing the ring, and an expression of loyalty/obedience.
I dont see anywhere in scripture where Mary stayed a virgin. Yes, she should be honoured, as she was a virgin with Christ.I dont feel this is a salvation issue though.

I’m not a catholic.

But i’m learning and trying to understand, looking through the written word, not anyone human beings word.

Ric
Glad you are here and trying to understand. Not everything is in the Bible. The Bible was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith.
 
I did not feel Christ in the CC. I do not agree with some of the things they teach like Mary being ever virgin. That Jesus had no brothers and sisters. That Mary was born without sin. That the Pope is infallible when it comes to spiritual matters. That they are to Church founded by Jesus. That they are the true church. That Christ is present in the Eucharist when a priest says a certain prayer. That I need to confess my sins to a priest and he can say they are forgiven. I also find the services to be ritualistic. That there is only one point of view and that is their view and anything different is heresy and false teachings. That they are the only ones who can interperate Scripture correctly. There’s more but I guess you get my point. Now I have nothing against Catholics I just don’t see things the way they want you to see them
I kind of understand your points.

Last night i was sent this;

So what is one to think when that comes across your desk?
Ric

The following excerpt from an address by the cardinals in the Roman church to Pope Pius 3rd, is on file and preserved in the National Library of Paris, folio No. 1068, Vol. 2,

pp 650 and 651:

“Of all the advice we can offer your holiness we must open your eyes well and use all possible force in the matter, namely to permit the reading of the gospel as little as possible in all countries under your jurisdiction. Let the very little part of the gospel suffice which is usually read in mass, and let no one be permitted to read more. So long as people will be content with the small amount, your interest will prosper; but as soon as the people want to read more, your interest will fail. The Bible is the book, which more than any other, has raised against us the tumults and tempests by which we have almost perished. In fact, if one compares the teaching of the Bible with what takes place in our churches, he will soon find discord, and will realize that our teachings are often different from the Bible, and oftener still, contrary to it”.
 
Another point i’ve thought of. (Still like to know about my last post though)

On the cross Jesus turned and said, Joh 19:26 Jesus saw his mother and the disciple he loved standing there; so he said to his mother, “He is your son.” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “She is your mother.” From that time the disciple took her to live in his home.

Why did not Mary go and live with her other sons and daughters, if she had any?
Ric
 
Another point i’ve thought of. (Still like to know about my last post though)

On the cross Jesus turned and said, Joh 19:26 Jesus saw his mother and the disciple he loved standing there; so he said to his mother, “He is your son.” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “She is your mother.” From that time the disciple took her to live in his home.

Why did not Mary go and live with her other sons and daughters, if she had any?
Ric
This is slightly off topic so I apologize in advance, but Riccardo reminded me of my question, with this last one of his.

I recall a quotation in the Bible; unfortunately I can’t find it so I’ll have to paraphrase. Nor do I recall its context. But Jesus addresses Mary and tells her “Go away from me, woman! You mean nothing to me.”

The passage was discussed in a lecture I once attended, the topic being divergent beliefs of Christians and Jews. The passage was used to illustrate that to a Jew, this would be a true trespass, to speak to one’s mother in this way. In the Jewish faith, one reveres his mother most faithfully, and respects and loves her throughout his life, helping her in any way he can and showing her his gratitude for bringing him into the world. The discussion that followed showed that some Jewish folks see this attitude of Christ toward his mother as difficult to understand. Also the family in general is revered as most holy so in any case it caused great pause.

Does anyone know the precise quotation, its context, and its meaning? Why does Christ speak to Mary this way? Is this an instance of “Tough Love” and He’s trying to spare her further pain down the road?

Janet, thank you for sharing your experience. I appreciated your concerns and was glad you felt comfortable in sharing them.

Peace,
Light1111
 
Can anyone confirm the validity of this? It reads more like an internet hoax. If true… It’s just unthinkable.
The following excerpt from an address by the cardinals in the Roman church to Pope Pius 3rd, is on file and preserved in the National Library of Paris, folio No. 1068, Vol. 2,

pp 650 and 651:

“Of all the advice we can offer your holiness we must open your eyes well and use all possible force in the matter, namely to permit the reading of the gospel as little as possible in all countries under your jurisdiction. Let the very little part of the gospel suffice which is usually read in mass, and let no one be permitted to read more. So long as people will be content with the small amount, your interest will prosper; but as soon as the people want to read more, your interest will fail. The Bible is the book, which more than any other, has raised against us the tumults and tempests by which we have almost perished. In fact, if one compares the teaching of the Bible with what takes place in our churches, he will soon find discord, and will realize that our teachings are often different from the Bible, and oftener still, contrary to it”.
 
Thank you for sharing your decision on this thread Janet. How does one accomplish a “formal defection”?
I did write a letter to the local ordinarius, explaining and declaring my defection from the Catholic Church. I also included information about when and where I was baptized (with address of that parish). I also stated that I was fully aware of any consequences resulting out of that formal act of defection and that I had thought about it carefully and intensely.
That means that I itinerated on my internal decision to leave the Catholic Church, my realization and external manifestation of that decision and with said letter I informed the competent authority. My letter did not leave any questions open about my intent and my reasoning.

I was informed about the reception in January of this year as I received a copy of the letter that had been sent to the parish I was baptized in which they were informed about my defection.

Well that is how I “accomplished” a formal defection (if you want to call the ability to research the right authority, their address, my first parish’s address and writing a letter an accomplishment, that is).
 
Can anyone help with my threads, 197-198?

The article was sent me, and i was told it was true.

To ask me whether it is or not, i dont know, but there must be someone who can confirm this.
The person who sent this, does not send duff stuff, but felt i should know it is filed.
Ric
 

Just done some digging, had a brain wave 🙂 and googled it, and bingo!!!​

In 1999, a reader of this web site sent me the following quotation which she had found posted on an online message board, and asked for my help in showing that it was a forgery.

In an address given by the College of Cardinals to Pope Pius III in 1503 we see what has become so obvious today. Following is an excerpt from the address:
"Of all the advice that we can offer your Holiness we must open your eyes well and use all possible force in the matter, namely to permit the reading of the gospel as little as possible in all the countries under your jurisdiction. Let the very little part of the gospel suffice which is usually read in mass, and let no one be permitted to read more. So long as people will be content with the small amount, your interest will prosper; but as soon as the people want to read more, your interest will fail. The Bible is a book, which more than any other, has raised against us the tumults and tempests by which we have almost perished. In fact, if one compares the teaching of the Bible with what takes place in our churches, he will soon find discord, and will realize that our teachings are often different from the Bible, and oftener still, contrary.

The complete address by the Cardinals is preserved in the National Library in Paris, Folio No. 1068, Vol. 2, pp.650-651.

To show that it is a forgery, I gathered the following information:

A web search at the time yielded several links (now defunct). A version can be found in the July/August, 1999, newsletter of Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries. (A query to the editor of the newsletter yielded no information about its provenance, just an assurance that it was legitimate.) A partial version can be found in the October, 1999, edition of The Gospel Message. A version appeared in 2000 on the Catholic information Network discussion board. A version in an article of uncertain date is posted on the web site of the Rice Road Church of Christ in Columbia, Missouri. The only printed version of this quote that I could find is from Facts For Roman Catholics, by Fabian S. Reinhart (1974). However, this small, privately published book is clearly derivative of other anti-Catholic works, but contains no bibliography.

While there is no “National Library in Paris,” I presumed that this referred to the Bibliotheque Nationale de France (BNF). With the assistance of a reference librarian at the BNF, I attempted to search their manuscript collection. However, the above reference does not correspond to their current catalog system for manuscripts: instead of size (folio), their catalog gives the language and then the number. In the French collection manuscript 1068 is Matieres pour discours de M. de Mesmes from the 17th century. In the Latin collection, manuscript 1068 is Diurnale ad usum ecclesiae Forojuliensis, and is contained in folio 94, oraisons en l’honneur de divers saints, from the 14th to 16th centuries. The manuscript comes from Peiresc, France.

A historian of the late medieval and early reformation period stated categorically that this quotation is a forgery. A historian of Catholicism in the 19th century told me that such forgeries were frequent in 19th century anti-Catholic tracts and periodicals.

Based on this information, I am confident that this quotation is a forgery, but I am still uncertain of its origin.

Fellow posts, just shows you what people will do to spread lies. i will let my friend know, as he has been taken in too.

I for one wish to say sorry for putting this on in the first place, seems some dont wont me to have anything to do with the RCC.
Ric

Still like views on my other post.
 
I kind of understand your points.

Last night i was sent this;

So what is one to think when that comes across your desk?
Ric

The following excerpt from an address by the cardinals in the Roman church to Pope Pius 3rd, is on file and preserved in the National Library of Paris, folio No. 1068, Vol. 2,

pp 650 and 651:

“Of all the advice we can offer your holiness we must open your eyes well and use all possible force in the matter, namely to permit the reading of the gospel as little as possible in all countries under your jurisdiction. Let the very little part of the gospel suffice which is usually read in mass, and let no one be permitted to read more. So long as people will be content with the small amount, your interest will prosper; but as soon as the people want to read more, your interest will fail. The Bible is the book, which more than any other, has raised against us the tumults and tempests by which we have almost perished. In fact, if one compares the teaching of the Bible with what takes place in our churches, he will soon find discord, and will realize that our teachings are often different from the Bible, and oftener still, contrary to it”.
Riccardo - this so-called “document” is a complete fraud. No such letter was ever sent to any Pope at any time. Although it claims to have been written in the 11th century - it wan’t written until the 16th century by an ex-Bishop (Paolo Pietro Vegerio (1498-1565), who left the Church to join the Reformation.

Read more about it here:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0209fea7.asp

It might interest you to know that this article can be found on just about every anti-Catholic website around. Whoever sent you this did NOT do his homework and has exposed themselves as an anti-Catholic.

Hope this helps. 👍
 
Thank you, as i looked i also found out.

Any thoughts about my other post?

And just for my info, what was meant by Paul when he mentioned James as being Jesus’ brother?

All the answers i’m getting are helping me understand the RCC.

God bless you
Ric
 
Many thanks. Yep, I’m afraid at times we all send stuff that we should perhaps look into before hand. I did make mention to the person who sent it, he did not seem too impressed I questioned him.

My other post, any thoughts on that?

Plus this morning I did read that Paul made mention when he went up to Jerusalem, he saw Jesus brother James only, again I’m only asking as I wish to get all straight in my mind.

I’ve enlisted in classes a RCC for studies, 10 week course, “Journey of faith”
Ricci
 
Hi, seems to be a problem in replying. sent two the same and it has not shown up, any ideas???
Ric
 
Riccardo - this so-called “document” is a complete fraud. No such letter was ever sent to any Pope at any time. Although it claims to have been written in the 11th century - it wan’t written until the 16th century by an ex-Bishop (Paolo Pietro Vegerio (1498-1565), who left the Church to join the Reformation.

Read more about it here
:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0209fea7.asp

**It might interest you to know that this article can be found on just about every **anti-Catholic website around. Whoever sent you this did NOT do his homework and has exposed themselves as an anti-Catholic.​

Forgive me if this come out 3 times, but everytime i send it does not seem to be coming up.
Many thanks.:thumbsup:Yep, I’m afraid at times we all send stuff that we should perhaps look into before hand. I did make mention to the person who sent it, he did not seem too impressed I questioned him.

My other post, any thoughts on that?

Plus this morning I did read that Paul made mention when he went up to Jerusalem, he saw Jesus brother James only, again I’m only asking as I wish to get all straight in my mind.

I’ve enlisted in classes a RCC for studies, 10 week course, “Journey of faith”
Ricci

Hope this helps. 👍
 
This is slightly off topic so I apologize in advance, but Riccardo reminded me of my question, with this last one of his.

I recall a quotation in the Bible; unfortunately I can’t find it so I’ll have to paraphrase. Nor do I recall its context. But Jesus addresses Mary and tells her “Go away from me, woman! You mean nothing to me.”

The passage was discussed in a lecture I once attended, the topic being divergent beliefs of Christians and Jews. The passage was used to illustrate that to a Jew, this would be a true trespass, to speak to one’s mother in this way. In the Jewish faith, one reveres his mother most faithfully, and respects and loves her throughout his life, helping her in any way he can and showing her his gratitude for bringing him into the world. The discussion that followed showed that some Jewish folks see this attitude of Christ toward his mother as difficult to understand. Also the family in general is revered as most holy so in any case it caused great pause.

Does anyone know the precise quotation, its context, and its meaning? Why does Christ speak to Mary this way? Is this an instance of “Tough Love” and He’s trying to spare her further pain down the road?

Janet, thank you for sharing your experience. I appreciated your concerns and was glad you felt comfortable in sharing them.

Peace,
Light1111
John 2:1-4 wedding at Cana.
 
I kind of understand your points.

Last night i was sent this;

So what is one to think when that comes across your desk?
Ric

The following excerpt from an address by the cardinals in the Roman church to Pope Pius 3rd, is on file and preserved in the National Library of Paris, folio No. 1068, Vol. 2,

pp 650 and 651:

“Of all the advice we can offer your holiness we must open your eyes well and use all possible force in the matter, namely to permit the reading of the gospel as little as possible in all countries under your jurisdiction. Let the very little part of the gospel suffice which is usually read in mass, and let no one be permitted to read more. So long as people will be content with the small amount, your interest will prosper; but as soon as the people want to read more, your interest will fail. The Bible is the book, which more than any other, has raised against us the tumults and tempests by which we have almost perished. In fact, if one compares the teaching of the Bible with what takes place in our churches, he will soon find discord, and will realize that our teachings are often different from the Bible, and oftener still, contrary to it”.
This passage sums up well the fears of the leadership of losing control over the populace in Europe at the time. They were invested in secular matters - politics, economics, temporal power.

It is also a good example of a faithless shepherd who runs away from the flock when danger threatens. Anyone who understands the Apostolic faith understands that there is no “different teachings” between the Church and the Scripture. It seems to be a testimony with which they incrimminate themselves that the were not teaching the true faith.

Shepherds like this who depart from the One Faith, and twist the gospel to meet their own avarice are judged with greater strictness. As Jesus said, “woe to them!”…They will be required to give an account to God of the souls they led astray.
 
This is slightly off topic so I apologize in advance, but Riccardo reminded me of my question, with this last one of his.
Former Questions is pretty broad. 😃

I recall a quotation in the Bible; unfortunately I can’t find it so I’ll have to paraphrase. Nor do I recall its context. But Jesus addresses Mary and tells her “Go away from me, woman! You mean nothing to me.”
John 2:3-7

3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.

4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.

7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
We have no way of knowing how many private miracles Jesus did for His mother over the years. She had no doubt in her that, if she brought him her immediate cares, that He would do whatever was needed. Jesus knew, though, that once He did a public miracle, it would be a straight shot to the cross. He had so much respect and regard for His mother that she allowed her to choose the hour and manner in which she would let Him go to his fate. She was given the power by God to declare that His hour had come. Once he worked this miracle, and His disciples saw it, and believed in Him, there was no pause to the cross. She followed Him all the way there, and stood beneath it as He poured out His life for the world.

Her timeless words “do whatever He tells you” echo through the centuries to us today.
The passage was discussed in a lecture I once attended, the topic being divergent beliefs of Christians and Jews. The passage was used to illustrate that to a Jew, this would be a true trespass, to speak to one’s mother in this way. In the Jewish faith, one reveres his mother most faithfully, and respects and loves her throughout his life, helping her in any way he can and showing her his gratitude for bringing him into the world.
Yes, and Jesus is the ultimate faithful Jew! 👍

When He addresses her as “Woman”, He indicates that she is created to be the mother of all living, just as Eve was, without sin. All who are the disciples of her son are also her offspring. This is a title of utmost respect, the meaning of which I think gets lost in our modern misogynist culture. Moderns thing Jesus is talking “down” to His mother, rather than allowing her the privilege of choosing the circumstance of His manifestation to the world.
The discussion that followed showed that some Jewish folks see this attitude of Christ toward his mother as difficult to understand. Also the family in general is revered as most holy so in any case it caused great pause.
I think the Jewish way of looking at this passage is the most helpful. When one understands that Jesus kept most perfectly the commandment to “honor your father and mother”, then the meaning of the passage is much more clear.
Does anyone know the precise quotation, its context, and its meaning? Why does Christ speak to Mary this way? Is this an instance of “Tough Love” and He’s trying to spare her further pain down the road?
I think Mary knew that she was not going to be spared further pain. It was prophesied to her that “a sword will pierce your own heart also”. She kept all these things in her heart. She knew she would have to let go of her beautiful beloved Son, so that He could accomplish the atonement for which He had come.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top